Report of the 2021 ERIM Open Science Survey
Dr. Lizette Guzman-Ramirez, Dr. Antonio Schettino
2021-09-10
Introduction
The Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM) is committed to Open Science, one way of knowing
The RSM & ESE Open Science Survey was open to all researchers from the 6th of April to the 6th of May 2021. Questions were adapted from the Swinburne Open Science Survey.
The survey explored how researchers perceive and use “open science” practices. Eight main topics were covered:
- Preregistration
- Open materials/code
- Open data
- Pre-publication archiving
- Open access
- General experience with open science practices
- Awareness of available tools
- Role of ERIM
This report has all the total responses (combined ESE and RSM)1.
For any comments or questions, please contact Dr. Lizette Guzman-Ramirez (ERIM Research Data Steward) or Dr. Antonio Schettino (ERS Open Science Coordinator).
Respondents
A total of 130 respondents started the survey, but only 113 finished it.
We asked participants their school, department, and research institute affiliation together with their position. A total of 59.29% of the respondents were from RSM, while 40.71% were affiliated to ESE. For the percentages separately for each department, see Figure 1.
Figure 1: INSERT FIGURE CAPTION HERE
When further dividing into position, the majority of the respondents (52.21%) were Tenured faculty member, followed by PhD student (22.12%), Tenure track (18.58%), and Postdoc or researcher (7.08%).
The majority of respondents were affiliated to ERIM (65.49%), while 17.7% are affiliated to Tinbergen. 9.73% are affiliated to Neither, and 7.08% of researchers are affiliated to ERIM,Tinbergen.
The total survey response rate was 20%, varying across research position (min. 14%, max. 30%; see Table ??), the response rate varied up to 34%. The table below presents the total response rate per research position as well as per school.
, the response rate varied up to 34%. The table below presents the total response rate per research position as well as per school.
| Position | RSM | ESE | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| PhD student | 20% | 16% | 18% |
| Postdoc or researcher | 23% | 17% | 20% |
| Tenured Track | 27% | 6% | 16% |
| Tenured Faculty Member | 27% | 34% | 30% |
| Total | 25% | 19% | 22% |
Preregistration
From the question “In your opinion, how important for your field is it that researchers preregister their studies?” we can see that more than 50% of the respondents think preregistration is important (combining very and moderately important), but a bit more than 16% think that preregistration is not at all important.
From the question “What is your experience with stud preregistration?” we see that both schools are aware of preregistration but mostly have not used it themselves. There is only a bit less than 9% of the respondents that regularly preregister their studies. And a similar percentange (almost 8%) has never heard of preregistration before answering this survey.
From the question “The following are possible concerns that researchers could have about preregistering their studies. Which of these concerns would apply to you?” we can see that the top 3 concerns for that researchers could have about preregistration are the following:
25.66% - I need to look at my data before I can decide how to best analyze it.
20.35% - Preregistration might lead to other people taking my research idea and implementing my plan.
19.47% - Preregistration prevents exploratory research.
Open materials/code
From the question In your opinion, how important for your field is it that materials and/or code are openly available?" we can see that more than 85% of the respondents think that using open materials and/or code is important (combining extremely, very, and moderately important), and only 2.6% think is not at all important.
From the question “What is your experience with using open materials and/or code?” we see that both schools are aware and have some experience with using open materials and/or code. There is a considerable amount (21%) of researchers that regularly use and/or create open materials and/or code and it is only a bit more than 7% of the respondents that have not heard of open materials and/or code before answering this survey.
From the question “What is your experience with sharing open materials and/or code?” we can see that a bit more than 30% of respondents are aware of sharing materials and/or code, about 30% have some experience sharing materials and/or code, and similarly almost 30% of respondents regularly share open materials and/or code. Comparing this figure to the one above, we can assume that researchers at ESE and RSM share their materials and/or code more than what they re-use.
From the question “The following are possible concerns that researchers could have about making their materials and/or code openly available. Which of these concerns would apply to you?” the top 3 concerns for that researchers could have about making their materials and/or code open are the following:
19.47% - Others might find it difficult to understand my materials and/or code.
15.04% - I might lose control over how my materials and/or code are being used.
8.85% - Other researchers might criticise my materials and/or code
It is important to mention that the most popular answer (27.43%) was that researchers do not share any of these concerns with sharing their materials and/or code openly.
Open data
From the question “In your opinion, how important for your field is it that data from published research are openly available?” we can see that more than 80% of the respondents think that using open data is important (combining extremely, very, and moderately important), and only a bit more than 5% think is not at all important.
From the question “What is your experience with using open data?” we see that both schools are aware and have some experience with using open data. More than 21% of respondents regularly use open data and there is only a very small percentage of respondents (less than 3%) that have never heard of open data before taking this survey.
From the question "What is your experience with sharing open data? we can see that almost 77% of respondents are aware of sharing open data and have some experience but do not share their data regularly, and almost 18% of respondents regularly share open data. Comparing this question with the one before, we can see that researchers have more experience using open data, than sharing their data openly.
From the question "The following are possible concerns that researchers could have about making their data openly available. Which of these concerns would apply to you? the top 3 concerns for that researchers could have about making their data open are the following:
30.09% - There could be issues related to privacy.
14.16% - There could be issues related to intellectual property.
11.5% - There could be issues related to ethics.
But a considerable percentage of respondents (17.7%) do not share any of these concerns.
Pre-publication archiving
From the question “In your opinion, how important is pre-publication archiving for your field?” we can see that around 55% of the respondents think that pre-publication is important (combining extremely, very, and moderately important), but almost 16% thinks it is not at all important.
From the question “What is your experience with pre-publication archiving?” we see that both schools are aware and have some experience with pre-publications. However, there is a similar percentage of respondents with opposite experience, a bit more than 20% of respondents have extensive experience with preprint archiving, while almost 19% has never heard of pre-publication archiving before they took this survey.
From the question “The following are possible concerns that researchers could have about uploading a manuscript to a pre-publication archive before submitting it for peer review. Which of these concerns would apply to you?” the top 3 concerns that researchers could have about uploading a manuscript to a pre-publication archive before submitting it for peer review are the following:
38.05% - Some journals might not publish findings that are uploaded to a pre-publication archive.
14.16% - Other people might copy my research and publish it before I do.
10.62% - Non-peer-reviewed findings might add noise to the literature.
But the second most common response (26.55%) was that researchers do not share any of these concerns.
Open access
From the question Approximately what proportion of your publications from the last 5 years are open access?" we can see that 20% of the respondents don’t know or prefer not to answer. Almost 20% of the respondent have some of their publication open access, while almost 16% have most of their publication open access. However, 17.7% of the respondents have all or none (also 17.7%) of their publication open access.
| question | item | percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Approximately what proportion of your publications from the last 5 years are open access? | Some | 19.47% |
| Approximately what proportion of your publications from the last 5 years are open access? | I don’t know/prefer not to answer | 20.35% |
| Approximately what proportion of your publications from the last 5 years are open access? | Most | 15.93% |
| Approximately what proportion of your publications from the last 5 years are open access? | Half | 8.85% |
| Approximately what proportion of your publications from the last 5 years are open access? | All | 17.7% |
| Approximately what proportion of your publications from the last 5 years are open access? | None | 17.7% |
| Many open access journals charge a fee for processing the article for publication. How have you managed payment of these fees? | I don’t know/prefer not to answer | 31.86% |
| Many open access journals charge a fee for processing the article for publication. How have you managed payment of these fees? | Other | 4.42% |
| Many open access journals charge a fee for processing the article for publication. How have you managed payment of these fees? | My open access publications did not involve fees | 12.39% |
| Many open access journals charge a fee for processing the article for publication. How have you managed payment of these fees? | It was paid under the “blanket agreement” between VSNU and selected academic publishers | 36.28% |
| Many open access journals charge a fee for processing the article for publication. How have you managed payment of these fees? | I collaborated with others and other co-author paid the fees with their research funding | 2.65% |
| Many open access journals charge a fee for processing the article for publication. How have you managed payment of these fees? | It was paid using the Erasmus Open Access Fund | 6.19% |
| Many open access journals charge a fee for processing the article for publication. How have you managed payment of these fees? | I paid the fees from my own research fund | 1.77% |
| Many open access journals charge a fee for processing the article for publication. How have you managed payment of these fees? | I submit my research to journals that do not provide open access options | 3.54% |
| Many open access journals charge a fee for processing the article for publication. How have you managed payment of these fees? | I received a fee waiver from the journal | 0.88% |
From the question Many open access journals charge a fee for processing the article for publication. How have you managed payment of these fees? we see that most Open Access fees were paid using the “blanket agreement” between VSNU and selected academic publisher, otherwise they responded that their open access publications did not involved fees. The 3rd mostly used resource was the Erasmus Open Access Fund.
General experiences with open science practices
From the question “What is your experience with Open Science practices?” more than 50% of the respondents have some experience with Open Science practices, a bit more than 10% have extensive experience, and a bit more than 35% are aware, but have not used any Open Science practices in their research.
From the question “Are you sharing your knowledge about open science practices with others?” we can see that more than 56% of researchers share their knowledge of Open Science informally, while 30% do not.
From the question “During March 2021 ERIM launched an ORCID campaign. Did you participate in it and got your own ORCID iD?”, we can see that almost 65% of respondents did not participated since they already had an ORCiD ID, but 23% of the respondents did participate and got an ORCiD ID.
From the statement “The following are possible barriers to the uptake of open science practices. Please place a tick beside any statement that you agree is a barrier in your field” the top 3 barriers to the uptake of open science practices are:
37.74% - Lack of funding for open access publishing.
13.27% - Lack of recognition in my field about the value of open science practices.
11.5% - Lack of credit in my institution for engaging in open science
Awareness of available tools
We asked researchers to indicate their awareness of each of the following open science resources listed below.
Open Science Framework (OSF), a bit more than 83% of the respondents do not use it, it is only a bit less than 17% of researchers that use OSF.
GitHub, there are a bit more than 70% of the respondents that do not use it and almost 30% of the respondents use it.
For the EUR data repository (FigShare), a bit less than 75% of the respondents do not use it and only 15% of them use it.
As for the 4TU Center for Reseach Data, all reseachers responded that they do not use it, and only a bit more than 7% have heard of it.
EUR SurfDrive, a bit less than 20% of the respondent do not know about it, but a bit more than 42% of the respondent use it already.
For EUR Dropbox, almost 50% of the respondents do not use it and the other 50% do use it.
As for the FAIR principles, more than 75% of the researchers do not use them and only a bit less than 15% use them.
EUR RePub, it is now depicted, and PURE is the new repository for publications, but at the time the survey was done, only a bit more then 33% of the respondents used it and the rest did not use it.
As for Zenodo, less than 1% of the respondents use it, and most researchers are totally unaware of it.
Role of ERIM
In the question “Do you expect that ERIM supports you in learning open science practice?” researchers were asked if they expected ERIM to support them in learning Open Science practices, almost 70% of respondents said yes while only 16% said no.
From the question “Which of the following open science practices would you like ERIM to provide information or support for?”, the top 3 Open Science practices that respondents would like to get information or support for are:
50% - Preregistration
18.42% - Open materials and/or code
14.47% - Open access publishing
ERIM Open Science Strategy
ERIM is committed to Open Science. The main reason why we conducted this survey is that we needed to know where the gaps are.
In order to provide enough support to our researchers ERIM is planning several interventions. 1) A 3 year campaign (2021 - 2024) on different aspects of Open Science. -In March 2021, ERIM conducted the ORCiD Madness Month,
The percentages presented in the survey responses reflect the survey respondents, not the total number of researchers at each school.↩︎